Monday, April 10, 2017

When he was investigating cold cases for NCIS, Special Agent John Snedden knew you always have to start from the beginning.

"Let's take a deep breath," he said. "And let's go back to square one, to the source of the original allegation, to determine whether it's credible."

On the Penn State campus in 2012, with national security at stake, that's just what Special Agent Snedden did on behalf of the U.S. government. And instead of finding a sex scandal or a cover-up in the cold case he was investigating in Happy Valley, Snedden said he discovered ample evidence of a "political hit job."

Back in 2012, Snedden was working as a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services. His assignment against the backdrop of the so-called Penn State sex abuse scandal was to determine whether former Penn State President Graham Spanier deserved to have his high-level national security clearance renewed.

The focus was on Spanier, but to do that investigation properly, Snedden, a PSU alum himself, had to unravel a big mess at his old alma mater. To figure out whether Spanier could be trusted with access to the most sensitive national secrets.

So Snedden began his job by starting at the beginning. By going back eleven years, to 2001, when Mike McQueary made his famous trip to the Penn State locker room. Where McQueary supposedly heard and saw a naked Jerry Sandusky cavorting in the showers with a young boy.

But there was a problem. In the beginning, Snedden said, McQueary "told people he doesn't know what he saw exactly." McQueary said he heard "rhythmic slapping sounds" in the shower, Snedden said.

"I've never had a rape case successfully prosecuted based only on sounds, and without credible victims and witnesses," Snedden said.

"I don't think you can say he's credible," Snedden said about McQueary. Why? Because he told "so many different stories," Snedden said. McQueary's stories about what he thought he saw or heard in the shower ranged from rough horseplay and/or wrestling all the way up to sex.

Which story, Snedden asked, do you want to believe?

"None of it makes any sense," Snedden said about McQueary's tale. "It's not a credible story."

Back in 2001, Snedden said, Mike McQueary was a 26-year-old, 6-foot-5, 240-pound former college quarterback used to running away from 350-pound defensive linemen.

If McQueary actually saw Jerry Sandusky raping a young boy in the shower, Snedden said, he probably would have done something to stop it.

"I think your moral compass would cause you to act and not just flee," Snedden said.

If McQueary really thought he was witnessing a sexual assault on a child, Snedden said, wouldn't he have gotten between the victim and a "wet, defenseless naked 57-year-old guy in the shower?"

Or, if McQueary decided he wasn't going to physically intervene, Snedden said, then why didn't he call the cops from the Lasch Building? The locker room where McQueary supposedly saw Sandusky with the boy in the showers.

When he was a baby NCIS agent, Snedden said, a veteran agent who was his mentor would always ask the same question.

"So John," the veteran agent would say, "Where is the crime?"

At Penn State, Snedden didn't find one.

Working on behalf of FIS, Snedden wrote a 110-page report, all in capital letters, where he catalogued the evidence that led him to conclude that McQueary wasn't a credible witness.

In his report, Snedden interviewed Thomas G. Poole, Penn State's vice president for administration. Poole told Snedden he was in Graham Spanier's office when news of the Penn State scandal broke, and Penn State's then-senior Vice President Gary Schultz came rushing in.

Schultz blurted out that "McQueary never told him this was sexual," Snedden wrote. Schultz was shocked by what McQueary told the grand jury, Snedden wrote.

"He [McQueary] told the grand jury that he reported to [Schultz] that this was sexual," Schultz told Poole and Spanier.

"While speaking, Schultz shook his head back and forth as in disbelief," Snedden wrote about Poole's observations. Poole "believes it appeared there was a lot of disbelief in the room regarding this
information."

"I've never had a rape victim or a witness to a rape tell multiple stories about how it happened," Snedden said. "If it's real it's always been the same thing."

But that's not what happened with McQueary. And Snedden thinks he knows why.

"In my view, the evolution of what we saw as a result of Mike McQueary's interview with the AG's office" was the transformation of a story about rough horseplay into something sexual, Snedden said.

"I think it would be orchestrated by them," Snedden said about the AG's office, which has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

In Snedden's report, he interviewed Schuyler J. McLaughlin, Penn State's facility security officer at the university's applied research laboratory. McLaughlin, a former NCIS agent himself, as well as a lawyer, told Snedden that McQueary initially was confused by what he saw.

"What McQueary saw, apparenty it looked
sexual to him and he may have been worried about what would happen to him," Snedden wrote. "Because McQueary wanted to keep his job" at Penn State.

[McLaughlin] "believes Curley and Schultz likely asked tough questions
and those tough questions likely caused McQueary to question what he actually saw," Snedden wrote. McLaughlin "believes that after questioning, McQueary likely did not know what he
actually saw," Snedden wrote. "And McQueary "probably realized he could not prove what he saw."

There was also confusion over the date of the alleged shower incident. At the grand jury, McQueary testified that it took place on March 1, 2002. But at the Sandusky trial, McQueary changed the date of the shower incident to Feb. 9, 2001.

There was also confusion over the identity of the boy in the showers. In 2011, the Pennsylvania State Police interviewed a man suspected of being "Victim No. 2." Allan Myers was then a 24-year-old married Marine who had been involved in Sandusky's Second Mile charity since he was a third-grader.

Myers, however, told the state police he "does not believe the allegations that have been raised" against Sandusky, and that another accuser was "only out to get some money." Myers said he used to work out with Sandusky since he was 12 or 13, and that "nothing inappropriate occurred while showering with Sandusky." Myers also told the police that Sandusky never did anything that "made him uncomfortable."

Myers even wrote a letter of support for Sandusky that was published in the Centre Daily Times, where he described Sandusky as his "best friend, tutor, workout mentor and more." Myers lived with Sandusky while he attended college. When Myers got married, he invited Jerry and Dottie Sandusky to the wedding.

Then, Myers got a lawyer and flipped, claiming that Sandusky assaulted him ten times. But at the Sandusky trial, the state attorney general's office deemed Myers an unreliable witness and did not call him to testify against Sandusky.

Instead, the prosecutor told the jury, the identity of Victim No. 2, the boy in the showers, "was known only to God."

Myers, however, eventually collected $3 million in what was supposed to be a confidential settlement with Penn State as Victim No. 2.

Mike McQueary may not have known for sure what he heard and saw in the shower. And the cops and the prosecutors may not know who Victim No. 2 really was. But John Snedden had it figured out pretty early what the source of the trouble was at Penn State.

Snedden recalled that four days into his 2012 investigation, he called his bosses to let them know that despite all the hoopla in the media, there was no sex scandal at Penn State.

"I just want to make sure you realize that this is a political hit job," Snedden recalled telling his bosses. "The whole thing is political."

Why did the Penn State situation get blown so far out of proportion?

"When I get a case, I independently investigate it," Snedden said. "It seems like that was not the case here. It wasn't an independent inquiry. It was an orchestrated effort to make the circumstances fit the alleged crime."

How did they get it so wrong at Penn State?

"To put it in a nutshell, I would say there was an exceptional rush to judgment to satisfy people," Snedden said. "So they wouldn't have to answer any more questions."

"It's a giant rush to judgement," Snedden said. "There was no debate."

"Ninety-nine percent of it is hysteria," Snedden said. Ninety-nine percent of what happened at Penn State boiled down to people running around yelling, "Oh my God, we've got to do something immediately," Snedden said.

It didn't matter that most of the people Snedden talked to at Penn State couldn't believe that Graham Spanier would have ever participated in a coverup, especially involving the abuse of a child.

Carolyn A. Dolbin, an administrative assistant to the PSU president, told Snedden that Spanier told her "that his father has physically abused him when [Spanier] was a child, and as a result [Spanier] had a broken nose and needed implants."

Spanier himself told Snedden, "He had been abused as a child and he would not stand for that," meaning a coverup, Snedden wrote.

Snedden couldn't believe the way the Penn State Board of Trustees acted the night they decided to fire both Spanier and Paterno.

There was no investigation, no determination of the facts. Instead, the officials running the show at Penn State wanted to move on as fast as possible from the scandal by sacrificing a few scapegoats.

At an executive session, the vice chairman of the PSU board, John Surma, the CEO of U.S. Steel in Pittsburgh, told his fellow PSU board members, "We need to get rid of Paterno and Spanier," Snedden said. And then Surma asked, "Does anybody disagree with that?"

"There wasn't even a vote," Snedden said. In Snedden's report, Dr. Rodney Erickson, the former PSU president, told Snedden that Spanier "is collateral damage in all of this."

Erickson didn't believe there was a coverup at Penn State, because of what Spanier had told him.

"I was told it was just horsing around in the shower," Spanier told Erickson, as recounted in Snedden's report. "How do you call the police on that?"

On the night the board of trustees fired Paterno, they kept calling Paterno's house, but there was no answer. Finally, the board sent a courier over to Paterno's house, and asked him to call Surma's cell phone.

When Paterno called, Surma was ready to tell the coach three things. But he only got to his first item.

"Surma was only able to tell Paterno that he was no longer football coach before Paterno hung up," Snedden wrote.

In Snedden's report, Spanier is quoted as telling Frances Anne Riley, a member of the board of trustees, "I was so naive."

"He means that politically," Snedden said about Spanier. "He was so naive to understand that a governor would go to that level to jam him. How a guy could be so vindictive," Snedden said, referring to the former governor, who could not be reached for comment.

When the Penn State scandal hit, "It was a convenient disaster," Snedden said. Because it gave the governor a chance "to fulfill vendettas."

The governor was angry at Spanier for vocally opposing Corbett's plan to cut Penn State's budget by 52 percent, Snedden wrote. In his report, Spanier, who was put under oath by Snedden and questioned for eight hours, stated that he had been the victim of "vindictiveness from the governor."

In Snedden's report, Spanier "explained that Gov. Corbett is an alumni of Lebanon Valley College [a private college], that Gov. Corbett is a strong supporter of the
voucher system, wherein individuals can choose to utilize funding toward
private eduction, as opposed to public education."

Corbett, Spanier told Snedden, "is not fond of Penn State, and is not fond of public higher education."

Spanier, Snedden wrote, "is now
hearing that when the Penn State Board of Trustees was telling [Spanier] not to take action and that
they [the Penn State Board of Trustees] were going to handle the situation, that the governor was
actually exercising pressure on the [The Penn State Board of Trustees] to have [Spanier] leave."

The governor, Snedden said, "wants to be the most popular guy in Pennsylvania." But Spanier was fighting him politically, and Joe Paterno was a football legend.

Suddenly, the Penn State scandal came along, and Corbett could lobby the Penn State Board of Trustees to get rid of both Spanier and Paterno.

And suddenly Corbett starts showing up at Penn State Board of Trustees meetings, where the governor was a board member, but didn't usually bother to go. Only now Corbett "is the knight in shining armor," Snedden said. Because he's the guy cleaning up that horrible sex abuse scandal at Penn State.

"The wrong people are being looked at here," Snedden said about the scandal at Penn State. As far as Snedden was concerned, the board of trustees at Penn State had no reason to fire Spanier or Paterno.

""It's a political vendetta by somebody that has an epic degree of vindictiveness and will stop at nothing apparently," Snedden said about Corbett.

The whole thing is appalling," Snedden said. "It's absurd that somebody didn't professionally investigate this thing from the get-go."

As far as Snedden is concerned, the proof that the investigation was tampered with was shown in the flip-flop done by Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State's former counsel.

"You've got a clear indication that Cynthia Baldwin was doing whatever they wanted her to do," Snedden said about Baldwin's cooperation with the AG's office.

In her interview with Snedden, Baldwin called Spanier "a very smart man, a man of integrity." She told Snedden that she trusted Spanier, and trusted his judgment. This was true even during "the protected privileged period" from 2010 on, Baldwin told Snedden. While Baldwin was acting as Spanier's counsel, and, on the advice of her lawyer, wasn't supposed to discuss that so-called privileged period with Snedden.

Baldwn subsequently became a cooperating witness who testified against Spanier, Curley and Schultz.

Another aspect of the hysterical rush to judgment by Penn State: the university paid out $93 million to the alleged victims of Sandusky, without vetting anybody. None of the alleged victims were deposed by lawyers; none were examined by forensic psychiatrists.

Instead, Penn State just wrote the checks, no questions asked. The university's free-spending prompted a lawsuit from Penn State's insurance carrier, the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company.

So Snedden wrote a report that called for renewing Spanier's high-level security clearance. Because Snedden didn't find any evidence of a coverup at Penn State. Because there was nothing to cover up.

"The circumstances surrounding [Spanier's] departure from his position as PSU president do not cast doubt on [Spanier's] current reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment and do not cast doubt on his ability to properly safeguard national security information," Snedden wrote.

Meanwhile, the university paid $8.3 million for a report from former FBI Director Louie Freeh, who reached the opposite conclusion that Snedden did. Freeh found that there had been a top-down coverup of a sex crime at Penn State that was allegedly orchestrated by Spanier.

What does Snedden think of the Louie Freeh report?

"It's an embarrassment to law enforcement," Snedden said.

Louie Freeh, Snedden said, is a political appointee.

"Maybe he did an investigation at one point in his life, but not on this one," Snedden said about the report Freeh wrote on Penn State.

What about the role the media played in creating an atmosphere of hysteria?

If Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile, Snedden said, how did he survive a month-long investigation back in 1998 by the Penn State police, the State College police, the Centre County District Attorney's office, and the state Department of Child/Public Welfare?

All of those agencies investigated Sandusky, after a mother complained about Jerry taking a shower with her 11-year-old son. Were all those agencies bamboozled? None of them could catch a pedophile in action?

Another problem for people who believe that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile: When the cops came to Sandusky's house armed with search warrants, they didn't find any porn.

Have you ever heard of a pedophilia case where large caches of pornography weren't found, I asked Snedden.

"No," he said. "Having worked child sex abuse cases before, they [pedophiles] go from the porn to actually acting it out. It's a crescendo."

"I'm more inclined" to believe the results of the 1998 investigation, Snedden said. "Because they're not politically motivated."

Snedden said he's had "minimalistic contact" with Sandusky that basically involved watching him behave at a high school football game.

"I really do think he's a big kid," Snedden said of Sandusky.

Does he believe there's any credible evidence that Sandusky is a pedophile?

"Certainly none that's come to light that wasn't susceptible to manipulation," he said.

Does Sandusky deserve a new trial?

"Without a doubt," Snedden said. Because the first time around, when he was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in jail, Sandusky didn't have a real trial, Snedden said.

"To have a real trial, you should actually have real credible witnesses and credible victims," Snedden said. "And no leaks from the grand jury."

It also would have been a fair trial, Snedden said, if the people who Sandusky would have called as defense witnesses hadn't already been indicted by the state attorney general's office.

While he was investigating Spanier, Snedden said, he had his own dust-up with the state Attorney General's office. It came in the form of an unwanted phone call from Anthony Sassano, the lead investigator in the AG's office on the Sandusky case.

Sassano didn't go through the appropriate channels when he called, Snedden said. But Sassano demanded to see Snedden's report.

Snedden said he told Sassano, sorry, but that's the property of the federal government. Sassano, Snedden said, responded by "spewing obscenities."

"It was something to the effect of I will fucking see your ass and your fucking report at the grand jury," Snedden recalled Sassano telling him.

Sure enough, Snedden was served with a subpoena from the state AG's office on October 22, 2012. But the feds sent the subpoena back saying they didn't have to honor it.

"The doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes a state court from compelling a federal employee, pursuant to its subpoena and contempt powers, from offering testimony contrary to his agency's instructions," the feds wrote back to the state Attorney General's office.

So what would it take to straighten out the mess at Penn State?

"The degree of political involvement in this case is so high," Snedden said.

"You need to take an assistant U.S. Attorney from Arizona or somewhere who doesn't know anything about Penn State," Snedden said. Surround him with a competent staff of investigators, and turn them loose for 30 days.

Thank you for your excellent article Ralph! Finally a journalist who is willing to do some investigative reporting and to challenge the OAG's account of just what happened in the Penn State fiasco. I hope that some other media outlets pick up on the story and report the shennaingans that have ocurred and that Special Agent John Snedden has exposed.

In this life there are a lot of contradictions. I believe that there questionable investigations done for the sake of expediency. I don't believe that Paterno did anything wrong. But for what logical reason would any man with the exception of the fathers. Why would any man take a shower with someone else's son.

It happens all the time. I've taken teenagers to play basketball and racquetball at Community Colleges, and I've taken them on multi day backpacking trips. When you are filthy dirty, sweaty, and smelly you take a shower or jump in the creek. Basic hygiene. It would be nice if the dads helped out some time, but most of them are couch potatoes or too busy. When I was a kid in Chicago, we had to take a nude shower and have our bodies inspected for infections in order to get into a public pool. We loved to soap up the floors, surf, snap towels, and throw water polo balls. Running around naked was fun. I'd have to see a lot of questionable behavior from someone before I would suspect abuse.

This is nothing more than the standard Paterno apologist fantasy narrative. Jerry Sandusky, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz are all guilty and convicted criminals. The only folks reading this type of stuff are PSU football fans who like other conspiracy nuts believe that JFK was killed by the CIA and the moon landings were faked. This type of narrative does great damage to child safety efforts and is really despicable. Doesn't surprise me that Snedden is a PSU grad. The delusion is strong.

Regardless of the way Anonymous feels, s/he should not be afraid of the truth and have confidence in the way the justice system does or doesn't work. I wonder if s/he really knows the facts of this matter or has just read the sensational headlines. There are many, if not a majority, of people fighting here who are not "football fans"; they simply care about children and their safety. That requires a serious look into why the powers that be at Penn State -- the 2011 Board of Trustees -- acted so hastily to try to make this go away. Governor Corbett played a prominent role, for a variety reasons; the Commonwealth may have recognized its negligence in 1998 and feared the repercussions; the Commonwealth also cleared placement of boys in Sandusky's home; there were connections between several Board members and Sandusky's charity, The Second Mile, which is were he met the boys with whom he spent time. This is about so much more than football, and it's time people realized that and take their blinders off.

You probably know by now how effective Fina, et al, were in prejudicing the case and polluting the jury pool with lies and hoaxes. The Fina/Corbett team never seemed to be bothered by ethics during computergate and bonusgate. Fina thought he could get away with pornocoPA unscathed and probably did. The Sanduskys were investigated multiple times for adoption and fostering children. The investigators found nothing, the caseworkers found nothing, and the minister of the church that the boys went hand and hand with the Sanduskys saw nothing inappropriate. So three college administrators are to assume that JS is a pedophile based upon someone seeing him showering with a teenager after a weight room workout.As far as reporting, all of the training I have had suggests that Curley did the proper thing by reporting the incident to the person who had custodial care of the children and controlled JS's access to the children. (Amazing that the two agencies that gave JS unfettered access to boys were not even investigated). Curley had no authority to contact a Second Mile Child..that was Raycovitz's responsibility. Raycovitz was derelict in his duty to properly investigate the incident.Allegations of suspected child abuse must be investigated by trained people. The last thing a cop wants to investigate is an abuse complaint. In LA, for instance, only about 49% of reports are further investigated. There are a lot of kids who make up stories, and a lot of people who make allegations of abuse to get revenge on an ex or someone they don't like. It takes an exceptionally well trained task force to navigate the labyrinth.

This happened. You can put on your tin foil hats and say that it didn't and you'd be wholly incorrect. Despite a rushed and poorly executed case, the facts still remain the facts. It's sad that in this era of "fake news" that "blogs" like this suddenly become a news source. There is a reason that news organizations have not picked up on this, because it's much like the Yeti, UFO's and 9/11 theories, they are all conspiracies that people love to hang on to. Why has a coach never come out and said that Jerry is innocent? Why was Jerry summarily let go in 1999 and NO other team in college football hired him, when he clearly had years left in his career? Simple questions with simple answers. Don't be dazed by the song and dance of a blog that has an agenda. Trust me, I know.

I love the viciousness you encounter when you have to tell people that what they previously believed may not be true.

But on this blog, after the Billy Doe story, we are used to doing that kind of work here.

I have previously stated that Snedden is a PSU grad. The idea that a special agent for the government trying to figure out whether somebody deserves a national security clearance would base that decision on loyalty to his alma mater is so funny I can't stop laughing.

On one end, there's his reputation as a veteran investigator and special agent to consider, along with the risk to our country's national security by giving a clearance to somebody who may be untrustworthy.

On the other end, there's his fuzzy memories of life at PSU back when he was a college guy, and his loyalty to good old PSU.

Very funny. Keep the laughs coming.

As far as Mr. Tin Foil hat is concerned, he's waiting for the mainstream media organizations to "pick up on this" to certify that it's real.

Another hilarious concept.

Were you watching during the last presidential election, sir, when the mainstream media got everything one hundred percent wrong?

Have you learned nothing? Getting the mainstream media to examine the contrarian side of a known story line when they got it wrong is like turning around a battleship.

They are loathe to reexamine something if they got it wrong. They prefer to be viewed as infallible. In the Billy Doe case, the Inquirer has yet to come to terms with the fact that this guy is a complete fraud, as testified to by the lead detective for the D.A.'s own investigation.

This is a common pattern with the Inquirer, and standard news organizations. They'll be the last ones to figure it out.

Jerry took an attractive "early out" package offered by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Coaches at that time were Commonwealth employees. Paterno urged him to take it due to poor job performance. If you look at some of the problems the program had in 1997 and 1998, you will understand why.

Anonymous - You have basic facts wrong. Sandusky was not "summarily let go in 1999." He retired after Paterno told him he would not name him as his successor because Sandusky spent too much time on his children's charity. Paterno expected a head coach to devote all his time to coaching.

Sandusky was offered the head coaching job at University of VA in late 2000 but couldn't come to terms. He certainly could have gotten another coaching job but he didn't appear that interested. He had a lucrative pension and got $57K per year as a consultant to his charity.

If PSU believed Sandusky was a child abuser, they never would have given him emeritus status when he retired, which kept him around on campus.

I wonder if the Inky has noticed that prosecutors and former prosecutors seem to be at the bottom of most scandals and hysteria that have surfaced in recent trials, Castile was behind the Traffic Court trial, our boy Williams and his gang at the DA's office for the Monsignor Lynn and Police Narcotics trials to mention a few, and now we come to find out that Corbett had a hand in the Penn State case.

When the Inky stops using the public like puppets to do the dirty work for these villains, innocents may have an fighting chance at trial or not be indicted at all if prosecutors stopped inventing crimes to benefit themselves.

I have no respect for the "Justice" Department and the tactics they use to inflict harm on fellow citizens to advance their careers or get revenge on political foes. Fina needs to go, what a snake and the lowest form of a snake, profiting from the abuse of his fellow countrymen.

Someone might want to let Snedden who thinks he knows it and apparently doesn't there was indeed a great big sex scandal at Penn State and also a very huge cover up and to think this went on for many years and not just in the shower room at PS but in other locations.

We can be sure of one thing ... Jerry Sandusky was railroaded for PC political reasons intermixed with other confounding circumstances. Convicted and sentenced w/in 7 months while closer to 7 years for the others. Unlike Sandusky, the others had legitimate legal counsel.

At least 3 other aspects possibly meriting note:

1. Allegedly Surma had personal animous toward Paterno.

2. Allegedly McQueary had personal issues that might facilitate his willingness to cooperate, even facetiously with law enforcement and

3. While the term "homosexuality" has never been uttered in this case because of its recent , "pedophilia" is a PC deadly, demonizing crime, especially in a leftist hotbed of "social justice" like PSU. And it is the latter term that the PSU BoT was set up to act in the absence of any real pursuit of truth or justice.

Again, no matter what ... Sandusdky was railroaded and real justice demands a re-trial.

It's funny how the anonymous person is the only one carrying the touch for the "narrative" we are lead to believe happened. We should "trust" him because he "knows", yet he doesn't provide any facts or info that refutes anything in this article. Nice try pal, but you're not even slightly convincing.

God seems to be the only one that listens to those that have been accused of a non-existent crime.I pray to God constantly to answer my prayers that the truth will be exposed and we can regain our lives.

When the federal government says you committed a crime, then runs to the Inky to spread the "fake news" you are doomed.

Your life is erased, your accomplishments vanish, you live in a constant state of turmoil, not one minute of one day is joyful, every day is an insult, you can't shake the humiliation and disgrace that infects your being.

The horror is constantly being replayed in your brain on a never ending loop, you go to sleep furious and wake up furious.

Representative of the United State government lie, they lie to grand juries,to judges and to the press. I have lost all my love for my country, I now can believe any ill that a foreign power would say about us,as I know how they treat their own citizens.

So God please help those of us that have been falsely accused of a crime, give us our lives back, give us relief, give us one good day without reliving the horror of being betrayed by your own countrymen and God please help those that can help expose the lies told the prosecution to have the courage to come forward.

Sandusky is stuck as once a judge denies his motions for a new trial, he will die in prison . Very unlikely he will get his request. AG is running on pride in keeping the status quo knowing full well knowing the facts don't match. What will the three administrators get as they each have misdemeanor count of child endangerment against them. Two accepted plea bargain as Spanier was found guilty of the same child endangerment misdemeanor count the two administrators pled to. Too coincidental for the jury to decide what count to convict of. If Judge sentences all to one year's probation, it would not be wise for Spanier to appeal this only to get retried be the same POS that did him before.

Spanier didn't use Snedden because he didn't want to be convicted. Ditka and company would have taken ole Sned to the woodshed. BTW, having personal experience with guys who investigate security clearances, they are the bottom of the barrel of investigators. A lot of them are outsourced.

To jj in Phila: Dismiss Myers out of hand on these grounds? You can't be serious.

By that rationale, we should dismiss any testimony from McQueary out of hand, since he originally got the year, date, and month wrong, by current assumptions--in which case, there is no shower episode to discuss.

Since McQueary claimed to have had 1" or at most 2" of viewing anything, and that through a mirror, why should anyone be expected to see him? And why is McQueary so much more credible than Myers?

Couldn't describe the configuration of the shower? By analogy, I was in Newark Airport several years ago. I can tell you why I was there and people I saw there. Inability to describe the configuration of the terminal negates nothing of my real experience there. So Myers couldn't describe the configuration of a shower from 10 years before? Sand-in-the-air cynicism.

Myers was as credible as McQueary, and more credible than the embellished OAG report or Louis Freeh's contrived conspiracy and cited-without-evidence motives.

The reason Myers gave the wrong year is because that was the year the AG was saying it was at the time. If Myers saw showering with Jerry as a non-issue, it would make sense that he would get the year wrong. What does not make sense is that someone whose "world was rocked" would get the year wrong, if you believe what the AG says about McQueary.

Jerry Sandusky also claims he never new the witness was McQueary until after the Grand Jury Leak. You may not believe anything Sanudsky says but what is his incentive to lie here.

If Myers is not victim 2, it shouldnt be very hard to find out who the real victim 2 is. There couldn't have been too many boys that Sandusky was regularly working out with in 2001. The reason the AOG has not found the real victim 2 is being it was certainly Myers.

Snedden's comments about Mike McQueary not physically intervening in what he believed was a child rape in 2001 contradict his later behavior in a crisis. Just recently, he helped a car accident victim and years ago he jumped into the middle of a knife fight between two football players.

Question: are there two different types of FBI agents, those that act with honesty, truthfulness and are reputable and forthright, who would report the facts accurately and impartially ?

Like the good old fashioned G-men in Hollywood films, the type that we could put our faith in to guide us in decision making during a trial.

Honorable people that deserve our respect, the pride of our country, those who represent what most Americans believe as a non-political, impartial entity of the justice department. Seekers of justice if you will.

As well as the type of FBI agent that work for the prosecution, such as in the Traffic Court case, where is was quite evident to all that the agent on the case lied for the prosecution. As he was caught multiple times in lies by the defense, and his behavior was referenced by the defense attorneys closing arguments. It should have been national news.

Are there two different sets of training schools for impartial agents and those that work for the prosecution ? Should the public be made aware of the difference in agents so we do not send innocent people to jail for the rest of their lives on the testimony of an agent that lies to advance the prosecutions case.

Holding people accountable is the new motto of our paper of record is touting, but it seems like FBI agents must get a pass as the media was present at the Traffic Court case and obviously it was able to accept the fact the agent lied to aid the prosecution.

It should have been national news," FBI AGENT GETS CAUGHT LYING AT TRIAL".

Is the system so irreparably broken and so corrupt that its acceptable to our paper of record to allow these travesties to continue? Who holds reporters accountable ?

I would love if someone could explain the difference in agents to me and to the region so we can make informed decisions if called to serve as a juror.

So - sitting in that 5th floor Dauphin County courtroom last month at Dr. Spanier's trial - it was painfully clear to me that the state had NO case against the former president. Simply put, the Commonwealth of PA did not prove that their alleged "cover up" and "conspiracy" thingy ever happened, regarding a crime of "anal rape in a Penn State shower" that never happened, to a Second Mile teen that our commonwealth has never bothered to identify after all these years.

More embarrassingly prosecutor Laura Ditka had Second Mile CEO & licensed child psychologist Dr. Jack Raykovitz on her witness stand. Jack testified before the jury in that courtroom that Second Mile leadership had FULL KNOWLEDGE of Sandusky's OUT-OF-PROGRAM contact with Second Mile youth. Jack testified that Sandusky was the charity chairman and fundraiser and provided NO counseling or therapy to Second Mile clients, which makes us why the hell the sleepovers, trips, work - out sessions, gifts, and personal calls, letters and visits to their homes?

There were multiple red flags being waved of Grooming of Second Mile youth by Sandusky, Second Mile leadership chose to ignore them, our OAG chose not to investigate Second Mile after all these years and we've gotta ask why.

Dr. Raykovitz knew the "kid in the shower" was a Second Mile teen, knew Jerry was in out-of-program contact with a Second Mile teen, chose not to identify the Second Mile teen, chose not to contact him or his parents to find out more about an incident that would cause Penn State to be in his office bouncing not just Second Mile kids, but ALL kids from campus.

Instead - Dr. Raykovitz recommended that Jerry "just wear swim trunks" the next time he showers with a youth after a work out. <------RED FLAG OF GROOMING HERE JACK. As a child psychologist and one who counsels Second Mile youth, most notably Matt Sandusky, Dr. Raykovitz should have realized that the goal of getting a youth in the locker room and/or shower by the offender - is to get the youth naked. Jerry could have been wearing a full-on pair of Carhartt overalls - it doesn't matter. The offender wants the child naked, who would then be confused about any touching by the adult. Any contact in that locker room/shower that is questioned by a parent could be then plausibly explained and waved off to UNTRAINED adults as "oh - it was just regular locker room stuff".

The jury sat there and accepted this TRAINED, LICENSED CHILD WELFARE PROFESSIONAL'S advice of "swim trunks" as a Best Practice moving forward for his charity chairman and fundraiser in OUT OF PROGRAM CONTACT with Second Mile youth.

Meanwhile, AG investigator Tony Sassano has been busy creeping the social media profiles of outspoken PSU alumni on this matter, instead of maybe....oh, I dunno....INVESTIGATING THE LEADERSHIP OF A KIDS CHARITY?

So really, it was never about "the children" - because if it were, our OAG would have skipped right down the 2001 reporting chain, nailed Jack Raykovitz & his wife Katherine Genovese for FTR/EWOC, and wrapped in Second Mile board members for Conspiracy, and we all would have gotten relevant answers on how a now-convicted preferential child sexual offender could found his own kids charity, staff it with child welfare professionals, abuse kids ALL culled from that charity while accessing these kids under Second Mile auspices, and what the hell was the charity leadership doing with all that money this offender was raising?

It would have been a Win Win for the AG, Second Mile victims and their families and PA taxpayers.

I do find a lot of good legal argument in this article and I agree that Louis Freeh report was a total fraud. There were still some huge irregularities at PSU. The 1998 victim was credible and Sandusky more or less admitted the crime at the time. Also it is inconceivable that someone in Spaniers position did not report the McQueary report to the police. He knew Sandusky's reputation after all. Was he afraid of Sandusky's political friends like bush and Ridge. Finally, where is Ray Gricar. Corbett knows everything.

So, let me get this straight. Sneeden is a PSU alumni (which isn't mentioned *anywhere* in this article). He also isn't an attorney, nor has he gone to law school (especially a trial attorney), yet the author of this article takes Sneeden's legal conclusions as gospel. Also, Sneeden has supposedly written this 110 page report IN ALL CAPS we're told, but gosh darn it, no one can see it, you'll just have to trust me what it says.

If Paterno, Curley and Shultz didn't believe there was child abuse going on, why was outside council hired on a Sunday to investigate reporting child abuse, the weekend of the shower incident reported by McQueary to Paterno? (P.69 Freeh Report)

Thoughtful commentary welcome. Trolling, harassing, and defaming not welcome. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. 230, we have the right to delete without warning any comments we believe are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.